That is the reason the Trump Administration brought this matter to the forefront and look forward to the appeals process all the way to the Supreme Court.
One reality many may not be thinking of, the numbers of anchor babies who will become citizens and what that means for the our culture for generations to come. It may not be the happy ending of a fairy tale.
It's against 14th amendment which makes it very clear anyone "subject to foreign powers" (is not a U.S. citizen) and has a baby on U.S. soil, neither one automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. They have to go through the usual process which takes about 7 yrs, it's very clear on that.
Agree 100%! My Irish ancestors came here during the Irish famine in 1849 - they worked very hard and likely were indentured servants for 7 yrs before they were free and could work toward U.S. citizenship. Their hard work needs to be respected as do all immigrants who come here legally, it's not easy and they are very proud of their accomplishment. The ones who come here LEGALLY add much to America, as they work hard, respect our laws and love America.
Your analysis that the Wong Kim Ark case would work to nullify the executive order is probably incorrect since Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally in the U.S. and living here permanently. So it wouldn't be a precedent for children of illegal aliens automatically being a U.S. citizen.
That's my impression as well of the Wong case. The fact that his parents were legal residents of the US could even be used to support Trump's position. And it's odd to me that the meaning expressed during contemporary debates about the amendment don't carry more weight. After all, that's the best understanding of what people thought they were actually voting for.
"subject to foreign power" means that person is not a U.S. citizen and therefore their child born here is not a U.S. citizen. 14th amendment is very clear on that. This article explains 14th amendment very well IMO:
But the right to stay in the country as parents is excluded. Until we force parents to leave, this will remain an anchor baby issue, which is simply being nice to people using children as barter. Revoke visas to the rich parents who fly in to have babies who have birth right citizenship.
Some foreigners do come here on a legal visa; they are welcome to stay but have to renew the visa every 6 months or so but if they have a baby neither baby or parent automatically becomes U.S. citizen as both are subject to foreign powers.
Wouldn’t the phrase in the constitution “and of the state wherein they reside” mean that they have to be residents in some sense? It would seem to exclude temporary visitors at a minimum.
One problem with the anchor babies is that the parents do not want to become citizens. They do not want to learn the language nor do they want to assimilate into the country and become citizens with allegiance to the US. If these children are citizens then the parents have to become citizens giving up their country of origin allegiance. They must learn the language and take the oath to become citizens. But even more, they committed fraud and broke the law. There are consequences to that.
You are defining "chain migration"; it's a Catch-22.
This will not end well for future generations.
The United States will become unrecognizable, just as the UK has become.
There will be a heavy price to pay just to placate the Marxist progressives purposefully creating this chaotic societal dysfunction.
Birthright citizenship is the cheaters way of becoming an American, without the hard work of learning about our country's history, culture and pledging allegiance to our Constitutional Republic.
These people are the TAKERS of every society and that is how societies FALL.
The USA of the Future will become the country of TAKERS and LOSERS; the Givers will become the minority and the Oligarchy will rise and prevail.
None of this would be an issue if our borders were properly maintained and those that overstayed visas were routinely picked up. But they aren’t and the politicians love to campaign on this issue, both parties because both sides stand to benefit.
I agree that the Supreme Court is much too wimpy to come to a new and bold conclusion to this. This can only be solved by changes to the 14th Amendment. I don’t know if that will ever happen. But I do know that having a President accomplish so much and force difficult discussions between the parties and their constituents so quickly in only 3.5 days since his inauguration, leads me to believe that our entire system has been broken and has been sleepwalking for the last 30-40 years. This can be easily blamed on people like McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer who focused on money and power and let our infrastructure crumble and voters feel demoralized while our intelligence agencies started innumerable wars and skirmishes around the world.
Yesterday (Jan 23) I managed to call the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Radio Show. The subject they were discussing was the 14th Amendment. I explained that I have been a licensed private investigator in Ohio for more than thirty years and had a long-time client in Taiwan.
I told them my job was to collect the medical records of women who went to California from China to deliver their babies. The women would arrive when they were eight months pregnant and stay for thirty days after their delivery.
I reminded them that when those babies returned to China, they were U.S. citizens, immediately qualified for benefits like social security, and in eighteen years, could return here and bring their entire families with them.
That's because most Americans don't realize they've been taken (and almost taken over after Biden) and don't realize what our politicians have done to us and to our country, until it hits home. With Trump in the White House (thank God!) all will be revealed. Let's hope we get smarter as the next 4 years go by. Thanks for the information in your comment.
I agree with Eastman, his arguments are very persuasive. And I think Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will too. But our biggest problem will be Kavanaugh, Roberts and Coney Barrett. They are not purists and are weak when it comes to modern day applications. I’m not sure that block can be swayed. I’m obviously going to just ignore the other justices lol.
Agree with John Eastman. Birthright citizenship to any baby no matter the status of the birth parents makes no sense in light of the arguments set forth in this article also. And as far as the old feudal notion of jus soli argument is concerned, I'd like to add an anecdotal example I ran across while reading about the late actress Audrey Hepburn's life. She was born in Belgium to parents of whom her father was a British subject. If the UK was still true and consistent to their past feudal notion she would have been a citizen of Belgium, but she was not due to her father's citizenship status.
In the country where I currently reside, the only way a foreigner like me could become a citizen is by an act of their national legislature granting citizenship to that individual foreigner. No one else, no matter what.
1) That the EO is effective only in the future and doesn’t seek to revoke existing citizenship is a good thing. I think a lot of people are opposed to it because they are concerned about the effect on existing anchor-baby-citizens… kind of one step beyond the “dreamer” argument.
2) I wonder if a second goal here isn’t to push congress into addressing the issue, whether by statute or proposed amendment. Popular sentiment is in favor of immigration enforcement - nationwide - and I wouldn’t want to be a congressional candidate in 2022 who is seen as indifferent to this issue.
These issues won't be resolved because we are still forced to go the Supreme Court for a final verdict. Of course, the Court is supposed to give only opinions, not set rules. But hey, if the people don't complain SCOTUS can do whatever the pressure dictates. With regard to "pushing" Congress, from your mouth to their ears!
I think EO will be upheld. No one mentions US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Supreme Court established child born in to parents legally residing in the US, but not U.S. citizens are automatically U.S. citizens at birth under the 14th Amend.
Case focused on the legal residency status of Wong Kim Ark's parents. They were both in the US as what we'd now consider to be Permanent Residents.
The Parents residency status is what drove the birthright citizenship for Wong Kim Ark.
This article explains 14th amendment very well - if a person is not a U.S. citizen, their child that is born here does not automatically become U.S. citizen, nor does the parent. Both have to go through usual long process to become U.S. citizen, which takes about 7 yrs. Here is the article and 14th amendment is very clear that "anchor babies" is not a legal right for foreigners:
14th amendment is very clear that anyone subject to foreign powers jurisdiction (anyone not a U.S. citizen IOW) and comes to U.S. and has a child without being a U.S. citizen, that child cannot become U.S. citizen just by being born. Both parents and child would have to go through usual procedures to become a U.S. citizen and that takes about 7 yrs or so. 14th amendment is VERY clear on this and this judge is going against the constitution. Supreme Court is going to have to approve Trump's executive order or Trump will find a way to prosecute them or get them out of office. He always find a way to get the job done.
Thank you for telling me that, much appreciated and I'm so glad my comment helped with your anger. I've had too many moments of anger myself these past dark years. I've followed Trump for 45 yrs, I knew he'd be president one day because he talked about it, and I have an idea how he works - and he is extraordinary. Blessings for you, dear one!
Why do we have people required to take a citizen course and apply for citizenship then take a oath to the United States if they are already citizens.
The case law of Wong Kim Ark (1898) said his parents were LEGAL RESIDENTS is why he was a citizen.
Illegal immigrant are just that ILLEGAL RESIDENTS and have no loyalty to the United States. They are still subject to the laws of their home country but are subject to our laws just as if a American citizen is in another country they are subject to our laws but also that country's laws.
We American citizens have a baby in a foreign country the baby doesn't have that country citizenship except in the UK.
This is why we broke away from the UK rule to setup our own Country and our own laws.
BOOM! You hit the truth right where it lies, Ray! Great comment! You know, after the lights go out and these issues become moot (as every unresolved issue becomes), dead lightbulbs still won't be replaced. MAGA
Just because somethings been going on for a long time doesn't make it right. Look at Roe.
That is the reason the Trump Administration brought this matter to the forefront and look forward to the appeals process all the way to the Supreme Court.
One reality many may not be thinking of, the numbers of anchor babies who will become citizens and what that means for the our culture for generations to come. It may not be the happy ending of a fairy tale.
It's against 14th amendment which makes it very clear anyone "subject to foreign powers" (is not a U.S. citizen) and has a baby on U.S. soil, neither one automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. They have to go through the usual process which takes about 7 yrs, it's very clear on that.
BINGO!
exactly
Agree 100%! My Irish ancestors came here during the Irish famine in 1849 - they worked very hard and likely were indentured servants for 7 yrs before they were free and could work toward U.S. citizenship. Their hard work needs to be respected as do all immigrants who come here legally, it's not easy and they are very proud of their accomplishment. The ones who come here LEGALLY add much to America, as they work hard, respect our laws and love America.
May the wind be always at your back...
THANK YOU! "...and may the road rise up to meet you!"
This is one of my most favorite blessings.
Amen
Your analysis that the Wong Kim Ark case would work to nullify the executive order is probably incorrect since Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally in the U.S. and living here permanently. So it wouldn't be a precedent for children of illegal aliens automatically being a U.S. citizen.
That's my impression as well of the Wong case. The fact that his parents were legal residents of the US could even be used to support Trump's position. And it's odd to me that the meaning expressed during contemporary debates about the amendment don't carry more weight. After all, that's the best understanding of what people thought they were actually voting for.
"subject to foreign power" means that person is not a U.S. citizen and therefore their child born here is not a U.S. citizen. 14th amendment is very clear on that. This article explains 14th amendment very well IMO:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
But the right to stay in the country as parents is excluded. Until we force parents to leave, this will remain an anchor baby issue, which is simply being nice to people using children as barter. Revoke visas to the rich parents who fly in to have babies who have birth right citizenship.
Some foreigners do come here on a legal visa; they are welcome to stay but have to renew the visa every 6 months or so but if they have a baby neither baby or parent automatically becomes U.S. citizen as both are subject to foreign powers.
Wouldn’t the phrase in the constitution “and of the state wherein they reside” mean that they have to be residents in some sense? It would seem to exclude temporary visitors at a minimum.
Hmm.
One problem with the anchor babies is that the parents do not want to become citizens. They do not want to learn the language nor do they want to assimilate into the country and become citizens with allegiance to the US. If these children are citizens then the parents have to become citizens giving up their country of origin allegiance. They must learn the language and take the oath to become citizens. But even more, they committed fraud and broke the law. There are consequences to that.
You are defining "chain migration"; it's a Catch-22.
This will not end well for future generations.
The United States will become unrecognizable, just as the UK has become.
There will be a heavy price to pay just to placate the Marxist progressives purposefully creating this chaotic societal dysfunction.
Birthright citizenship is the cheaters way of becoming an American, without the hard work of learning about our country's history, culture and pledging allegiance to our Constitutional Republic.
These people are the TAKERS of every society and that is how societies FALL.
The USA of the Future will become the country of TAKERS and LOSERS; the Givers will become the minority and the Oligarchy will rise and prevail.
Sad!
You're speaking for me too, Gayle.
None of this would be an issue if our borders were properly maintained and those that overstayed visas were routinely picked up. But they aren’t and the politicians love to campaign on this issue, both parties because both sides stand to benefit.
I agree that the Supreme Court is much too wimpy to come to a new and bold conclusion to this. This can only be solved by changes to the 14th Amendment. I don’t know if that will ever happen. But I do know that having a President accomplish so much and force difficult discussions between the parties and their constituents so quickly in only 3.5 days since his inauguration, leads me to believe that our entire system has been broken and has been sleepwalking for the last 30-40 years. This can be easily blamed on people like McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer who focused on money and power and let our infrastructure crumble and voters feel demoralized while our intelligence agencies started innumerable wars and skirmishes around the world.
I'd pay $50 to Like this Bigly.
100% spot on.
Yesterday (Jan 23) I managed to call the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Radio Show. The subject they were discussing was the 14th Amendment. I explained that I have been a licensed private investigator in Ohio for more than thirty years and had a long-time client in Taiwan.
I told them my job was to collect the medical records of women who went to California from China to deliver their babies. The women would arrive when they were eight months pregnant and stay for thirty days after their delivery.
I reminded them that when those babies returned to China, they were U.S. citizens, immediately qualified for benefits like social security, and in eighteen years, could return here and bring their entire families with them.
That's because most Americans don't realize they've been taken (and almost taken over after Biden) and don't realize what our politicians have done to us and to our country, until it hits home. With Trump in the White House (thank God!) all will be revealed. Let's hope we get smarter as the next 4 years go by. Thanks for the information in your comment.
Thank you, Gayle, for the compliment.
John Eastman disagrees:
https://americanmind.org/salvo/birthright-citizenship-game-on/
I agree with Eastman, his arguments are very persuasive. And I think Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will too. But our biggest problem will be Kavanaugh, Roberts and Coney Barrett. They are not purists and are weak when it comes to modern day applications. I’m not sure that block can be swayed. I’m obviously going to just ignore the other justices lol.
Well, let's hope that Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Coney Barrett are 'purists' when it comes to logic and common sense - ha!
I will also ignore the other Justices who cannot define what a woman is.
Agree with John Eastman. Birthright citizenship to any baby no matter the status of the birth parents makes no sense in light of the arguments set forth in this article also. And as far as the old feudal notion of jus soli argument is concerned, I'd like to add an anecdotal example I ran across while reading about the late actress Audrey Hepburn's life. She was born in Belgium to parents of whom her father was a British subject. If the UK was still true and consistent to their past feudal notion she would have been a citizen of Belgium, but she was not due to her father's citizenship status.
The majority of countries do NOT recognize birthright citizenship. It makes no sense.
It will eventually be the destruction of our culture, if this is not settled now.
In the country where I currently reside, the only way a foreigner like me could become a citizen is by an act of their national legislature granting citizenship to that individual foreigner. No one else, no matter what.
Two thoughts:
1) That the EO is effective only in the future and doesn’t seek to revoke existing citizenship is a good thing. I think a lot of people are opposed to it because they are concerned about the effect on existing anchor-baby-citizens… kind of one step beyond the “dreamer” argument.
2) I wonder if a second goal here isn’t to push congress into addressing the issue, whether by statute or proposed amendment. Popular sentiment is in favor of immigration enforcement - nationwide - and I wouldn’t want to be a congressional candidate in 2022 who is seen as indifferent to this issue.
Good comment. Thoughtful.
These issues won't be resolved because we are still forced to go the Supreme Court for a final verdict. Of course, the Court is supposed to give only opinions, not set rules. But hey, if the people don't complain SCOTUS can do whatever the pressure dictates. With regard to "pushing" Congress, from your mouth to their ears!
I think EO will be upheld. No one mentions US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Supreme Court established child born in to parents legally residing in the US, but not U.S. citizens are automatically U.S. citizens at birth under the 14th Amend.
Case focused on the legal residency status of Wong Kim Ark's parents. They were both in the US as what we'd now consider to be Permanent Residents.
The Parents residency status is what drove the birthright citizenship for Wong Kim Ark.
Very important info. Thanks.
Isn't it funny..
Our kangaroo courts are unwilling to do their primary job of maintaining public order and safety. Often they directly undermine it.
99.9% of courts sat on their hands and did nothing whatsoever to stop the deranged crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of Covid.
Yet now, so soon as President Trump takes action against criminal foreigners, the courts leap into action without delay.
Lazy hippocrites! Most should be debenched anyway.
fecklessness is now law
LOL - it only hurts when I laugh...
This article explains 14th amendment very well - if a person is not a U.S. citizen, their child that is born here does not automatically become U.S. citizen, nor does the parent. Both have to go through usual long process to become U.S. citizen, which takes about 7 yrs. Here is the article and 14th amendment is very clear that "anchor babies" is not a legal right for foreigners:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
14th amendment is very clear that anyone subject to foreign powers jurisdiction (anyone not a U.S. citizen IOW) and comes to U.S. and has a child without being a U.S. citizen, that child cannot become U.S. citizen just by being born. Both parents and child would have to go through usual procedures to become a U.S. citizen and that takes about 7 yrs or so. 14th amendment is VERY clear on this and this judge is going against the constitution. Supreme Court is going to have to approve Trump's executive order or Trump will find a way to prosecute them or get them out of office. He always find a way to get the job done.
Thank you for both of your fine comments, and the link. My anger has subsided considerably after reading them - lol.
Thank you for telling me that, much appreciated and I'm so glad my comment helped with your anger. I've had too many moments of anger myself these past dark years. I've followed Trump for 45 yrs, I knew he'd be president one day because he talked about it, and I have an idea how he works - and he is extraordinary. Blessings for you, dear one!
Why do we have people required to take a citizen course and apply for citizenship then take a oath to the United States if they are already citizens.
The case law of Wong Kim Ark (1898) said his parents were LEGAL RESIDENTS is why he was a citizen.
Illegal immigrant are just that ILLEGAL RESIDENTS and have no loyalty to the United States. They are still subject to the laws of their home country but are subject to our laws just as if a American citizen is in another country they are subject to our laws but also that country's laws.
We American citizens have a baby in a foreign country the baby doesn't have that country citizenship except in the UK.
This is why we broke away from the UK rule to setup our own Country and our own laws.
BOOM! You hit the truth right where it lies, Ray! Great comment! You know, after the lights go out and these issues become moot (as every unresolved issue becomes), dead lightbulbs still won't be replaced. MAGA
I assume rootless locusts like John Yoo will flee with his grandchildren to Switzerland or Poland after the US becomes Mexico City/Delhi.